Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: singhdev in Dr B R Ambedkar Institute Of Dental ... vs Union Of India on 1 April, 2024Matching Fragments
4. Mr. T. Singhdev submits, per contra, that the Union of India has waited for over almost a year for the comments to come from the State Government and that it has decided to proceed with the recommendations to close down the petitioner institution only when, despite repeated reminders, the State Government has failed to provide any comments. While Mr. T. Singhdev submits that the reasons for the State government's inaction in this regard cannot be presumed at this juncture, the Union Government and the DCI cannot be expected to await indefinitely for the State government to respond, especially where there are clear deficiencies in the petitioner institution.
5. Inasmuch as Section 16A(ii) uses the word "may" in its opening clause, the requirement of obtaining comments from the State Government, he submits, is not a statutory imperative. Discretion vests with the Union Government in that regard. Having repeatedly corresponded with the State of Bihar and failed to obtain any response from that quarter, Mr. Singhdev points out that, on 18 August 2023, the Union of India addressed a final communication to the State Government, para 2 of which reads thus:
(Emphasis supplied)
6. As such, Mr. Singhdev submits that the State of Bihar was put on notice that, insofar as the academic year 2024-25 and onwards was concerned, the Union of India was not inclined to wait any further for a response from the State government.
7. Prima facie, given the fact that the requirement of calling for a response from the State government is a matter of discretion, if the Union government took a decision on 18 August 2023 to give one final opportunity to State government to respond, failing which it would proceed on the basis of the DCI's recommendations, no fault can be found with that decision.
8. There is some substance in Mr. Singhdev's contention that the Union Government or the DCI could not be expected to wait indefinitely for a response from the State government and, if it possessed the discretion to call for such a response, also possessed the discretion to decide not to await any further for the response to be provided.